|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 14:26:48 GMT
Billary needs to just hold onto Pennsylvania, Colorado and Virginia. technically just this will do it
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 16, 2016 14:39:23 GMT
Billary needs to just hold onto Pennsylvania, Colorado and Virginia. technically just this will do it Crazy that Drumpf could win Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida but still lose. US elections are a joke.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 15:08:10 GMT
technically just this will do it Crazy that Drumpf could win Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida but still lose. US elections are a joke. In practice yes, they are basically 51 mini-elections in one shot. But demographics are not Trump's friend. Women vote+minority vote+35% white dudes=victory for Clinton. This isn't 1980 when whites comprised 80+% of the voting population. Hell, it's not even 2012 when they were 72% (and Obama won quite handily there). They will only be 68-69% this cycle. Trump can beat Rmoney's margins with whites and still get slaughtered...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 16:07:21 GMT
Crazy that Drumpf could win Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida but still lose. US elections are a joke. In practice yes, they are basically 51 mini-elections in one shot. But demographics are not Trump's friend. Women vote+minority vote+35% white dudes=victory for Clinton. This isn't 1980 when whites comprised 80+% of the voting population. Hell, it's not even 2012 when they were 72% (and Obama won quite handily there). They will only be 68-69% this cycle. Trump can beat Rmoney's margins with whites and still get slaughtered... I disagree. The article from the Times that I posted explains my case better than I can. "The biggest reason is that demographic change was an overrated contribution to Mr. Obama’s victory, and it will help Mrs. Clinton only at the margins this year. Analysts have conflated all of the effect of higher turnout and percentage of support among nonwhite voters with demographic shifts. In truth, the turnout and support were far more powerful components." Every demographic in this supposed shift is showing zero enthusiasm for Hillary, especially Millenials. The Hag is screwing the pooch. She started playing prevent defese at the end of July. What do they say about the prevent defense?
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 16, 2016 17:21:51 GMT
Crazy that Drumpf could win Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida but still lose. US elections are a joke. In practice yes, they are basically 51 mini-elections in one shot. But demographics are not Trump's friend. Women vote+minority vote+35% white dudes=victory for Clinton. This isn't 1980 when whites comprised 80+% of the voting population. Hell, it's not even 2012 when they were 72% (and Obama won quite handily there). They will only be 68-69% this cycle. Trump can beat Rmoney's margins with whites and still get slaughtered... Prebus has been trying to wake up the GOP to what you stated but they won't listen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 17:29:37 GMT
In practice yes, they are basically 51 mini-elections in one shot. But demographics are not Trump's friend. Women vote+minority vote+35% white dudes=victory for Clinton. This isn't 1980 when whites comprised 80+% of the voting population. Hell, it's not even 2012 when they were 72% (and Obama won quite handily there). They will only be 68-69% this cycle. Trump can beat Rmoney's margins with whites and still get slaughtered... Prebus has been trying to wake up the GOP to what you stated but they won't listen. Well, it's really shitty to win the House, win the governships, run the table except the general when every dope and his grandmother pays attention for two weeks and has their head filled with bullshit by the DNC and the media.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 16, 2016 17:47:50 GMT
Prebus has been trying to wake up the GOP to what you stated but they won't listen. run the table except the general When was the last time the GOP had a year like 2008 ? The GOP can have their backwards, tax-taking red states.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 17:56:21 GMT
In practice yes, they are basically 51 mini-elections in one shot. But demographics are not Trump's friend. Women vote+minority vote+35% white dudes=victory for Clinton. This isn't 1980 when whites comprised 80+% of the voting population. Hell, it's not even 2012 when they were 72% (and Obama won quite handily there). They will only be 68-69% this cycle. Trump can beat Rmoney's margins with whites and still get slaughtered... Prebus has been trying to wake up the GOP to what you stated but they won't listen. Yep, their post-report on why they lost in 2012 specifically stated their party needed to have better outreach to minorities...and yet Trump is doing the exact opposite. Some people will be in for a rude surprise in november
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 18:03:19 GMT
In practice yes, they are basically 51 mini-elections in one shot. But demographics are not Trump's friend. Women vote+minority vote+35% white dudes=victory for Clinton. This isn't 1980 when whites comprised 80+% of the voting population. Hell, it's not even 2012 when they were 72% (and Obama won quite handily there). They will only be 68-69% this cycle. Trump can beat Rmoney's margins with whites and still get slaughtered... I disagree. The article from the Times that I posted explains my case better than I can. "The biggest reason is that demographic change was an overrated contribution to Mr. Obama’s victory, and it will help Mrs. Clinton only at the margins this year. Analysts have conflated all of the effect of higher turnout and percentage of support among nonwhite voters with demographic shifts. In truth, the turnout and support were far more powerful components." Every demographic in this supposed shift is showing zero enthusiasm for Hillary, especially Millenials. The Hag is screwing the pooch. She started playing prevent defese at the end of July. What do they say about the prevent defense? First, there is no such thing as zero enthusiasm. Second, the fastest rising demo (latinos) is going to vote in historic numbers in november (plenty of research on this) and Trump will not even come close to Romney's ## with the AA vote. Third, Clinton is leading with the white women vote by a margin larger than Obama did and the women vote overall is usually around 54% in turnout. Fourth, the only reason why this seems close is that polls are using a likely voter screen based on 2004 demographics which is unrealistic by any metric (74% white vote just isnt going to happen). Fifth, the youth vote is always the most unstable voting block and never to be trusted to come out so no pol ever truly relies on them to turn out in big numbers. sixth, we will find out who is right soon enough
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 18:04:25 GMT
run the table except the general When was the last time the GOP had a year like 2008 ? The GOP can have their backwards, tax-taking red states. You'd have to go back the last time a Democrat tanked the entire agenda. So probably 1980. The midterm elections almost always swing right because the low information voters stay home.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 18:07:16 GMT
When was the last time the GOP had a year like 2008 ? The GOP can have their backwards, tax-taking red states. The midterm elections almost always swing right because the low information voters stay home. This is true. I believe the 2014 midterm had something like 42% turnout....just pathetic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 18:07:39 GMT
I disagree. The article from the Times that I posted explains my case better than I can. "The biggest reason is that demographic change was an overrated contribution to Mr. Obama’s victory, and it will help Mrs. Clinton only at the margins this year. Analysts have conflated all of the effect of higher turnout and percentage of support among nonwhite voters with demographic shifts. In truth, the turnout and support were far more powerful components." Every demographic in this supposed shift is showing zero enthusiasm for Hillary, especially Millenials. The Hag is screwing the pooch. She started playing prevent defese at the end of July. What do they say about the prevent defense? First, there is no such thing as zero enthusiasm. Second, the fastest rising demo (latinos) is going to vote in historic numbers in november (plenty of research on this) and Trump will not even come close to Romney's ## with the AA vote. Third, Clinton is leading with the white women vote by a margin larger than Obama did and the women vote overall is usually around 54% in turnout. Fourth, the only reason why this seems close is that polls are using a likely voter screen based on 2004 demographics which is unrealistic by any metric (74% white vote just isnt going to happen). Fifth, the youth vote is always the most unstable voting block and never to be trusted to come out so no pol ever truly relies on them to turn out in big numbers. sixth, we will find out who is right soon enough It's an oversimplification. The logic is, "there are more minorites, and more minorites vote Democrat." The demographic argument doesn't account for turnout, enthusiam (I would argue that The Hag getting less votes than the Bhab is an enthusiam gap) or ground game.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 18:21:53 GMT
First, there is no such thing as zero enthusiasm. Second, the fastest rising demo (latinos) is going to vote in historic numbers in november (plenty of research on this) and Trump will not even come close to Romney's ## with the AA vote. Third, Clinton is leading with the white women vote by a margin larger than Obama did and the women vote overall is usually around 54% in turnout. Fourth, the only reason why this seems close is that polls are using a likely voter screen based on 2004 demographics which is unrealistic by any metric (74% white vote just isnt going to happen). Fifth, the youth vote is always the most unstable voting block and never to be trusted to come out so no pol ever truly relies on them to turn out in big numbers. sixth, we will find out who is right soon enough It's an oversimplification. The logic is, "there are more minorites, and more minorites vote Democrat." The demographic argument doesn't account for turnout, enthusiam (I would argue that The Hag getting less votes than the Bhab is an enthusiam gap) or ground game. Turnout is linked to ground game and nothing can properly weight alleged enthusiasm before an election takes place. Enthusiasm (or, rather lack of it) was supposed to take down Obama in 2012 according to the shit media.....that did not end well for the Repubs. Bhab is on a forum that has favorable demographics for him relative to Clinton. We have no womenfolk here and few minorities (RHO is one and I am not aware of any others).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 18:41:56 GMT
It's an oversimplification. The logic is, "there are more minorites, and more minorites vote Democrat." The demographic argument doesn't account for turnout, enthusiam (I would argue that The Hag getting less votes than the Bhab is an enthusiam gap) or ground game. Turnout is linked to ground game and nothing can properly weight alleged enthusiasm before an election takes place. Enthusiasm (or, rather lack of it) was supposed to take down Obama in 2012 according to the shit media.....that did not end well for the Repubs. Bhab is on a forum that has favorable demographics for him relative to Clinton. We have no womenfolk here and few minorities (RHO is one and I am not aware of any others). Bhab is a socialist...he's funneling votes from Clinton. New registered voters at the moment are 750k Republicans to 500k Dems.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 18:44:27 GMT
Turnout is linked to ground game and nothing can properly weight alleged enthusiasm before an election takes place. Enthusiasm (or, rather lack of it) was supposed to take down Obama in 2012 according to the shit media.....that did not end well for the Repubs. Bhab is on a forum that has favorable demographics for him relative to Clinton. We have no womenfolk here and few minorities (RHO is one and I am not aware of any others). New registered voters at the moment are 750k Republicans to 500k Dems. Which state? that can't be a national total because 250k difference nationally is nothing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 18:55:06 GMT
New registered voters at the moment are 750k Republicans to 500k Dems. Which state? that can't be a national total because 250k difference nationally is nothing Nationally. But there's no enthusiam gap, right? New voters are registering Republican 1.5:1 because of the increased Latino demographics? I'm not trying to say Trump is going to win, I would say it's 60/40 odds for Clinton, but if she wins the electoral college is going to save her. Imo, it's a gross oversimplification to say a win is due to more of this demographic or another, because it ignores the reason people actually vote. And at least in Florida, she's polling behind where Obama did vs Romney in 2012 with Latinos.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 16, 2016 18:59:47 GMT
When was the last time the GOP had a year like 2008 ? The GOP can have their backwards, tax-taking red states. because the low information voters stay home. High turnout for low info voters during the mid-terms. They just follow the lies on Faux News. The GOP will never have a sweep like the Dems did in 2008, never. Like I said, the takers can have their red states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 19:07:11 GMT
because the low information voters stay home. High turnout for low info voters during the mid-terms. They just follow the lies on Faux News. The GOP will never have a sweep like the Dems did in 2008, never. Like I said, the takers can have their red states. Well, I would hope not. Because we would have to be in two wars and a borderline depression. Democrats fear Rush and Fox News because their voters aren't interested enough in politics or current events to sustain a successful pundit/opinion program. Air America was a tremendous flop and MSNBC gets taken to school in the rating every Nielsen cycle. The Democrats rely on manipulating ignorant voters through misinformation, intellectual bullying, and race/class baiting. Don't forget the transfer of cash to their supporters through Welfare benefits*. *the stat you're talking about is erroneous because it relied on a single cycle of campaign results ten years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 16, 2016 19:27:40 GMT
Which state? that can't be a national total because 250k difference nationally is nothing Nationally. But there's no enthusiam gap, right? New voters are registering Republican 1.5:1 because of the increased Latino demographics? I'm not trying to say Trump is going to win, I would say it's 60/40 odds for Clinton, but if she wins the electoral college is going to save her. Imo, it's a gross oversimplification to say a win is due to more of this demographic or another, because it ignores the reason people actually vote. And at least in Florida, she's polling behind where Obama did vs Romney in 2012 with Latinos. 250k spread over 50 states really is nothing. Why for example would it matter if, say 20k registered as new repubs in Alabama or even CA...neither would affect the election there. And then there is the small fact of actually getting them to the polls...another matter entirely. At any rate, we can revisit this on Nov 9 when speculation will give way to facts for both of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 20:38:11 GMT
Which state? that can't be a national total because 250k difference nationally is nothing Nationally. But there's no enthusiam gap, right? New voters are registering Republican 1.5:1 because of the increased Latino demographics? I'm not trying to say Trump is going to win, ****I would say it's 60/40 odds for Clinton****, but if she wins the electoral college is going to save her. Imo, it's a gross oversimplification to say a win is due to more of this demographic or another, because it ignores the reason people actually vote. And at least in Florida, she's polling behind where Obama did vs Romney in 2012 with Latinos. projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#henrytheoracle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 20:48:21 GMT
Nationally. But there's no enthusiam gap, right? New voters are registering Republican 1.5:1 because of the increased Latino demographics? I'm not trying to say Trump is going to win, I would say it's 60/40 odds for Clinton, but if she wins the electoral college is going to save her. Imo, it's a gross oversimplification to say a win is due to more of this demographic or another, because it ignores the reason people actually vote. And at least in Florida, she's polling behind where Obama did vs Romney in 2012 with Latinos. 250k spread over 50 states really is nothing. Why for example would it matter if, say 20k registered as new repubs in Alabama or even CA...neither would affect the election there. And then there is the small fact of actually getting them to the polls...another matter entirely. At any rate, we can revisit this on Nov 9 when speculation will give way to facts for both of us. Never underestimate the anarchist, irresponsible, or anti-establisment bent of the American voter, my friend. We elected Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger after all.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 16, 2016 21:23:36 GMT
The Hag could win something like 21 states and have enough electoral votes to win. Theoretically, she could lose the popular vote at the same time but I doubt the voter turnout will be sufficient for that. The galling part of her likely "victory" is that she will not understand or believe that she's the lesser of two evils in the minds of just enough voters to squeak her into the Whitehouse. She will think the majority of the country loves her. She will believe she is some bright, shining historical figure for breaking the glass ceiling, delusional sociopath that she is. The fact is, she's possibly the worst candidate since the turn of the 20th century and through a very odd, strike-of-lighting-like set of circumstances, she will have edged out a freak of a nominee. And she probably only killed 2-3 people along the way to do it
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 16, 2016 21:43:27 GMT
High turnout for low info voters during the mid-terms. They just follow the lies on Faux News. The GOP will never have a sweep like the Dems did in 2008, never. Like I said, the takers can have their red states. Democrats fear Rush and Fox News because their voters aren't interested enough in politics or current events to sustain a successful pundit/opinion program. Air America was a tremendous flop and MSNBC gets taken to school in the rating every Nielsen cycle. The Democrats rely on manipulating ignorant voters through misinformation, intellectual bullying, and race/class baiting. Don't forget the transfer of cash to their supporters through Welfare benefits*. *the stat you're talking about is erroneous because it relied on a single cycle of campaign results ten years ago. HAHA "fear Rush"! "Kids who do drugs should be put in jail for life". Then pumpkin head gets caught shopping oxy. Faux News ratings are high because of the dimits that watch their programs love to be lied too. Corporate CEOs are the biggest collectors of welfare on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Sept 16, 2016 22:24:12 GMT
The Hag could win something like 21 states and have enough electoral votes to win. Theoretically, she could lose the popular vote at the same time but I doubt the voter turnout will be sufficient for that. The galling part of her likely "victory" is that she will not understand or believe that she's the lesser of two evils in the minds of just enough voters to squeak her into the Whitehouse. She will think the majority of the country loves her. She will believe she is some bright, shining historical figure for breaking the glass ceiling, delusional sociopath that she is. The fact is, she's possibly the worst candidate since the turn of the 20th century and through a very odd, strike-of-lighting-like set of circumstances, she will have edged out a freak of a nominee. And she probably only killed 2-3 people along the way to do it That's still below the Underwood line. Trump is such a sideshow. I've always thought the man was a joke going back to his first few opportunities to garner national attention. The style, the grandiosity, and heroic self image have never worked for me. He has always reminded me of the rich kid hanging out with the popular kids who doesn't realize that they only let him because he pays for gas and booze, and occasionally steals Oxy from the medicine cabinet at home. He's faux badass and I've never seen him face a real challenge with anything like creativity or courage. I wouldn't vote for him if he was the candidate of a fringe party whose sole platform was how to make Book's life perfect...unless he actually proposed solutions to the issues that matter to me, and I could actually believe that he could deliver. Because in the end, I don't give a damn about the politics of personality crap that dominates the US media during election cycles. But it's intensely fascinating for someone who holds that perspective to watch and see just how her very identity - more than just her personality - is affecting her in this election. The Underwood line is more than a joke. One of the things that gets wrapped up in the whole "insider/outsider" line of thinking is that there is a recipe to become a viable candidate, and if you're on the inside, you can see that line as a path and make decisions based on following the path more than for any other purpose. I think that's what she's done for most of her career, and certainly since the fact Bill was test driving hummers became international knowledge. It was like she said "OK. Here's how I'm going to use this and everything else to put myself on the path to the Presidency." There are other candidates who've done that. Paul Martin was like that in Canada - among those who made it for however brief a stint. But you usually see them get to the point where they're Bobby Jindal or Martin O'Malley or worse, Lincoln Chafee. They come on stage for the first time and it's clear that they're little wooden figures playing politician. Clinton is no less the opportunist, no less the policy chameleon, than the others - I have no doubt that her goal is to become president and then not embarrass herself, not effect significant positive change in the lives of Americans using the power of the Presidency. And this close to the end, when there's no distance and perspective, you see how the opportunist has trouble turning into the skids to stay on track, because every little course correction to chase another shiny thing could potentially wreck the whole shebang. The lessons of Jimmy Stewart movies were always that the best leader is the one who doesn't want power, he (or she, but Jimmy had balls) wants change. But the process is so skewed now, those guys get booted to the curb early because someone finds pics of them dropping a deuce in a box in a parking lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 0:27:27 GMT
And she probably only killed 2-3 people along the way to do it Sounds like you have a long night aheaf on the phone with Jake from Unspecified Affairs...happy to have an excuse to post this again.
|
|